On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Terry Reedy wrote:
> On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>
>> The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
>> calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
>> only took a couple years to prove that they are theo
On 3/18/2013 11:31 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
The idea that message passing is fundamentally different from method
calling also turned out to be one of those strange ideas, since it
only took a couple years to prove that they are theoretically
completely isomorphic—and,
Since the isomorphism is
From: Mark Janssen
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 4:41 PM
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert
> wrote:
>> Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
>>
>> A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence of arguments.
> That's what you send around. Newer dynamic-typ
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> Have you even looked at a message-passing language?
>
> A Smalltalk "message" is a selector and a sequence of arguments. That's what
> you send around. Newer dynamic-typed message-passing OO and actor languages
> are basically the same as
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
>> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
>>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
>>> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Georg Brandl wrote:
> Am 18.03.2013 05:26, schrieb Mark Janssen:
>> Continuing on this thread, there would be a new bunch of behaviors to
>> be defined. Since "everything is an object", there can now be a
>> standard way to define the *next* common abstraction of
8 Dihedral writes:
> zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
>> the key conceptual shift is that by enforcing a syntax that moves
>> away from invoking methods and move to message passing between
>> objects, you're automatically enforcing a more modular approach.
>
> Please check object pasca
> You're dreaming of a utopia where computers just read our minds and
> know what we're thinking. So what if I can pass 42 into an object.
> What do I intend to happen with that 42? Do I want to add the element
> to a list? Access the 42nd element? Delete the 42nd element? Let the
> object pick a b
zipher於 2013年3月19日星期二UTC+8上午1時04分36秒寫道：
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> > I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
>
> > entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
>
> > and subsequent emails in thi
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Mark Janssen
wrote:
>> Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hello,
I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
and wanted to engage the python community on the subje
> Ian Cordasco wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Mark Janssen
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just posted an answers on quora.com about OOP (http://qr.ae/TM1Vb)
>>> and wanted to engage the python community on the subject.
>
>
> My answer to that question would be that it *did*
> ca
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I am very interested in this as a concept, although I must admit I'm not
> entirely sure what you mean by it. I've read your comment on the link above,
> and subsequent emails in this thread, and I'm afraid I don't understand what
> you me
So, by introducing this collaboration mechanism with a syntax that defines it
as sending and receiving things that are *not* arbitrary objects, the language
would naturally reinforce a more thoroughly decoupled architecture?
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 17, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Mark Janssen wrote:
13 matches
Mail list logo
